of peace, the chiefs of the tribe meet and refresh themselves after the fatigues of the hunt by feasting, and laughter, and play. The common people are not allowed to join, or, indeed, to play at this particular game at all. Sir Frederick Manson, the military secretary to the above-mentioned expedition, resided for a few weeks with the tribe after the conclusion of peace, and learnt the rudiments of the sport. He was so much impressed by its lively nature that he explained it to the passengers and crew of the ship in which he returned to England, and the name Ural Mountains is that which the sailors spontaneously produced from a pardonable confusion in their ungeographical minds between the great Russian range and the Orula tribe from whom the game had been brought. Whether the Royal Navy has been inoculated with it, or has suffered it to drop into forgetfulness, we are unable to say; but an account of the principles of the game was found among Sir Frederick's papers after his death; and it is by his nephew's permission that we publish it, in a form only slightly adapted to suit a more orderly society of Europeans.

To play at "Ural Mountains," appoint one of the party judge, and divide the rest into two sides, who must sit facing one another. Each side selects a captain. Each side should be not less than two in number, and not greater than six or eight. About four or five is the best number; and the sides need not be exactly equal. We will call them, for the sake of clearness, A, B, C, D, &c., and a, b, c, d, &c., A and a being the captains. The game is begun by the captains, one of whom accuses the other of some imaginary crime,-the more absurd the better. He is then subject to an examination from his antagonist as to the circumstances of the charge, his means of knowing it, the supposed motives, and anything in heaven or earth that may be considered to be in any way connected with it. To every question asked he must give a distinct answer. He is not allowed not to know; and, the more impossible and grandly

As soon as the

will be the result. accused captain has asked as many questions as he thinks fit, another of the side takes it up and continues the examination, trying if possible to shake the evidence and obtain a self-contradiction; and all in turn ask at least one question, and more if they wish. Then the accuser who is being examined passes on his part to the next in order, and he is in his turn examined. He is considered identical with his leader for purposes of examination, may be asked a second time the same questions, or others, and must give answers not inconsistent with those given before. Of course he may launch out into new, startling statements, which his leader must accept as part of the evidence. Then the next takes his part, and the next, and so throughout; the whole side being considered as one man, and answering about their knowledge of the crimes, and all questions that are asked, in the first person, and never contradicting themselves-or, it would be more proper to say, himself. If there is a discrepancy in the evidence given, the cross-examining side may call out that it is a "blot," and appeal to the judge, who allows one, two, or three, to their side, according to the grossness of the blunder; the blundering person, however, may endeavour to explain away his inconsistency, and if he succeeds cleverly, the judge may mitigate his decision. The side under examination may not speak to one another while it lasts. A limit of time should be settled beforehand; if there are four or five on a side, a quarter of an hour is about enough for the examination. When once everyone has asked at least one question, the fire of interrogatory becomes general, and any one of the accused may ask any one of the accusers any questions; only one, however, must speak at a time, and the captain commands his side in questions of prior right to cross-examine. When the time is up, the examination is reversed: the original accused captain has to declare an alibi, and state where he was, and what doing, at the time; or show in some way that

of peace, the chiefs of the tribe meet and refresh themselves after the fatigues of the hunt by feasting, and laughter, and play. The common people are not allowed to join, or, indeed, to play at this particular game at all. Sir Frederick Manson, the military secretary to the above-mentioned expedition, resided for a few weeks with the tribe after the conclusion of peace, and learnt the rudiments of the sport. He was so much impressed by its lively nature that he explained it to the passengers and crew of the ship in which he returned to England, and the name Ural Mountains is that which the sailors spontaneously produced from a pardonable confusion in their ungeographical minds between the great Russian range and the Orula tribe from whom the game had been brought. Whether the Royal Navy has been inoculated with it, or has suffered it to drop into forgetfulness, we are unable to say; but an account of the principles of the game was found among Sir Frederick's papers after his death; and it is by his nephew's permission that we publish it, in a form only slightly adapted to suit a more orderly society of Europeans.

To play at "Ural Mountains," appoint one of the party judge, and divide the rest into two sides, who must sit facing one another. Each side selects a captain. Each side should be not less than two in number, and not greater than six or eight. About four or five is the best number; and the sides need not be exactly equal. We will call them, for the sake of clearness, A, B, C, D, &c., and a, b, c, d, &c., A and a being the captains. The game is begun by the captains, one of whom accuses the other of some imaginary crime,-the more absurd the better. He is then subject to an examination from his antagonist as to the circumstances of the charge, his means of knowing it, the supposed motives, and anything in heaven or earth that may be considered to be in any way connected with it. To every question asked he must give a distinct answer. He is not allowed not to know; and, the more impossible and grandly

will be the result. As soon as the accused captain has asked as many questions as he thinks fit, another of the side takes it up and continues the examination, trying if possible to shake the evidence and obtain a self-contradiction; and all in turn ask at least one question, and more if they wish. Then the accuser who is being examined passes on his part to the next in order, and he is in his turn examined. He is considered identical with his leader for purposes of examination, may be asked a second time the same questions, or others, and must give answers not inconsistent with those given before. Of course he may launch out into new, startling statements, which his leader must accept as part of the evidence. Then the next takes his part, and the next, and so throughout; the whole side being considered as one man, and answering about their knowledge of the crimes, and all questions that are asked, in the first person, and never contradicting themselves-or, it would be more proper to say, himself. If there is a discrepancy in the evidence given, the cross-examining side may call out that it is a "blot," and appeal to the judge, who allows one, two, or three, to their side, according to the grossness of the blunder; the blundering person, however, may endeavour to explain away his inconsistency, and if he succeeds cleverly, the judge may mitigate his decision. The side under examination may not speak to one another while it lasts. A limit of time should be settled beforehand; if there are four or five on a side, a quarter of an hour is about enough for the examination. When once everyone has asked at least one question, the fire of interrogatory becomes general, and any one of the accused may ask any one of the accusers any questions; only one, however, must speak at a time, and the captain commands his side in questions of prior right to cross-examine. When the time is up, the examination is reversed: the original accused captain has to declare an alibi, and state where he was, and what doing, at the time; or show in some way that

Lord Saltire and General Mainwaring had a long interview, and a long consultation. Lord Hainault and the General witnessed his will. There were some legacies to servants; twenty thousand pounds to Miss Corby; ten thousand to John Marston; fifty thousand pounds to Lady Ascot; and the rest, amounting in one way or another, to nearly four hundred thousand pounds, was left to Lord Ascot (our old acquaintance, Lord Welter) and his heirs for ever.

There was another clause in the will, carefully worded-carefully guarded about by every legal fence which could be erected by law, and by money to buy that law-to the effect that, if Charles should reappear, he was to come into a fortune of eighty thousand pounds, funded property.

Now please to mark this. Lord Ascot was informed by General Mainwaring that, the death of Charles Ravenshoe being determined on as being a fact, Lord Saltire had made his will in his (Lord Ascot's) favour. I pray you to remember this. Lord Ascot knew no particulars, but only that the will was in his favour. If you do not keep this

in mind, it would be just as well if there had been no Lord Welter at all in the story.

Ravenshoe and its poor twelve thousand a-year begin to sink into insignificance, you see. But still we must attend to it. How did Charles's death affect Mackworth Rather favourably. The property could not come into the hands of a Protestant now. William was a staunch Catholic, though rebellious and disagreeable. If anything happened to him, why, then there was Ellen to be produced. Things might have been better, certainly, but they were decidedly improved by that young cub's death, and by the cessation of all search for the marriage register. And so on. If you care to waste time on it, you may think it all through for yourselves, as did not Father Mackworth.

And I'll tell you why. Father Mackworth had had a stroke of paralysis, as men will have, who lead, as he did, a life of worry and excitement, without taking proper nourishment; and he was lying, half idiotic, in the priest's tower at Ravenshoe.

To be continued.

THE URAL MOUNTAINS: THE Romans in the time of Horatius, or in the time of Lord Macaulay, used to amuse themselves in the winter evenings by roasting chesnuts, telling stories from modern history, and broiling pieces of kid's flesh. Our present civilization deputes part of these operations to the cook; and it is not generally found that historic narratives are sufficiently vivid in their interest to amuse ladies and gentlemen from dinner to bed-time continuously. So little is this the case, that in quest of the playful they weary themselves to death with games of versification, or make believe to be pleased with the slow torture of "proverbs." Games of cards are, of course, an unfailing resource; and some space has lately been given in these pages to the

A NEW PARLOUR GAME.

hitherto but partially known. Still, a gap remains to be filled in the entertainments of an English evening; and this article will be an attempt to fill it by the suggestion of a parlour game not as yet popular in this country, and not depending on combinations of kings and knaves for its success.

The "Ural Mountains is a game which has been played certainly for more than a hundred years among a large tribe of Kafirs in South Africa. The Orula race is one of the most intelligent of the warlike nations situated at the back of the great Frang-Li chain in latitude 35° 31′ S.; and they have long been known as the originators of that peculiar form of cross-bow which was so fatal to our troops in the expedition of

of peace, the chiefs of the tribe meet and refresh themselves after the fatigues of the hunt by feasting, and laughter, and play. The common people are not allowed to join, or, indeed, to play at this particular game at all. Sir Frederick Manson, the military secretary to the above-mentioned expedition, resided for a few weeks with the tribe after the conclusion of peace, and learnt the rudiments of the sport. He was so much impressed by its lively nature that he explained it to the passengers and crew of the ship in which he returned to England, and the name Ural Mountains is that which the sailors spontaneously produced from a pardonable confusion in their ungeographical minds between the great Russian range and the Orula tribe from whom the game had been brought. Whether the Royal Navy has been inoculated with it, or has suffered it to drop into forgetfulness, we are unable to say; but an account of the principles of the game was found among Sir Frederick's papers after his death; and it is by his nephew's permission that we publish it, in a form only slightly adapted to suit a more orderly society of Europeans.

To play at "Ural Mountains," appoint one of the party judge, and divide the rest into two sides, who must sit facing one another. Each side selects a captain. Each side should be not less than two in number, and not greater than six or eight. About four or five is the best number; and the sides need not be exactly equal. We will call them, for the sake of clearness, A, B, C, D, &c., and a, b, c, d, &c., A and a being the captains. The game is begun by the captains, one of whom accuses the other of some imaginary crime,-the more absurd the better. He is then subject to an examination from his antagonist as to the circumstances of the charge, his means of knowing it, the supposed motives, and anything in heaven or earth that may be considered to be in any way connected with it. To every question asked he must give a distinct answer. He is not allowed not to know; and, the more impossible and grandly

will be the result. As soon as the accused captain has asked as many questions as he thinks fit, another of the side takes it up and continues the examination, trying if possible to shake the evidence and obtain a self-contradiction; and all in turn ask at least one question, and more if they wish. Then the accuser who is being examined passes on his part to the next in order, and he is in his turn examined. He is considered identical with his leader for purposes of examination, may be asked a second time the same questions, or others, and must give answers not inconsistent with those given before. Of course he may launch out into new, startling statements, which his leader must accept as part of the evidence. Then the next takes his part, and the next, and so throughout; the whole side being considered as one man, and answering about their knowledge of the crimes, and all questions that are asked, in the first person, and never contradicting themselves-or, it would be more proper to say, himself. If there is a discrepancy in the evidence given, the cross-examining side may call out that it is a "blot," and appeal to the judge, who allows one, two, or three, to their side, according to the grossness of the blunder; the blundering person, however, may endeavour to explain away his inconsistency, and if he succeeds cleverly, the judge may mitigate his decision. The side under examination may not speak to one another while it lasts. A limit of time should be settled beforehand; if there are four or five on a side, a quarter of an hour is about enough for the examination. When once everyone has asked at least one question, the fire of interrogatory becomes general, and any one of the accused may ask any one of the accusers any questions; only one, however, must speak at a time, and the captain commands his side in questions of prior right to cross-examine. When the time is up, the examination is reversed: the original accused captain has to declare an alibi, and state where he was, and what doing, at the time; or show in some way that